When it all comes down to it I cannot wrap my head around how a private blockchain is different than current systems. A private blockchain merely acts as a permissioned network that enables entities to secure information. Whereas “the cloud” is not actually a cloud in the sky, a private blockchain is not actually a true blockchain. These coined buzzwords are simply marketing ploys. Yes, a private blockchain adds some layers of encryption to protect privileged data and does have the ability to make a variety of business processes more efficient as a whole, but does that justify an excess of $1 billion invested into the underlying technology if the latest trend of private blockchains continues?



To me at least, the greatest strength of a distributed open ledger (public blockchain) apart from the technological advancements is the protection from one single entity or power possessing majority control over the network by utilizing a fully distributed system. By having a private or managed blockchain it is no different from a security standpoint than being the system administrator for a major network. If someone gains access to those few controlling keys, then the network is exposed and corrupted. Whereas Bitcoin requires a unified community agreement before a process can be implemented and if it is done unjustly then supporters can choose to not migrate to the new fork of code thus making the culprit of the unjust act irrelevant. Private blockchains do not offer this protection, they do not offer protection to “the people.”

In case I lost you in the previous paragraph let me use this broad comparison. Look at how the U.S nuclear activation protocol works. A few high-ranking individuals with a large amount of surrounded security are required to initiate it. Secure method? Yes, however is it flawless? No, nothing is. But for each additional person that is required to initiate the process, the security risk decreases astronomically. With current systems (I am going to single out credit card security shortcomings) if someone can break through the few layers of security on a major server holding millions of personal financial accounts (as we have seen in the past with major breaches in Target, eBay, and countless others) they now have a lot of extremely valuable information in their possession just by breaking through one point of access which is often well worth their while, especially because they know exactly what lies behind those locked doors.

Now look how Bitcoin’s public blockchain is designed. There is no one central point of access. That same “hacker/cracker” would now need to gain access to each of those individual’s devices/networks independently to obtain the same information which practically speaking (without quantum computing power) is a near-impossible feat and most definitely not worth the time it would take. This is by far the biggest flaw I foresee with private blockchains as they seem to not be addressing this crucial issue.
So while distributing further and further has its largely noticeable security advantages, there are key drawbacks. With more minds (or steps) required to complete a task comes a slower reaction time which, depending on the gravity of the scenario, could have a highly negative impact.



Now we stand at a crossroad and a well thought out plan of action needs to be developed. Distributing further with public blockchains such as Bitcoin greatly reduces security risk, but if an adverse event where to take place the reaction time may not suffice which results negatively. Alternatively, private blockchains do not contribute overly (when compared to what a public blockchain can do) to general security; however, if that bad event took place they would most likely be able to address it swiftly and dismantle the situation. I hate to be a pessimist but under the current conditions we are exposing ourselves far too greatly on both sides of the spectrum. Someone once told me a great quote, “There is no point in putting excessive locks on your front door if you are going to leave the window right next to it unlocked.” That is where, in my opinion, both systems stand at the current time and instead of increasing collaboration to leverage technology we are splitting the industry further and further which will only make it harder to revert with each passing day.

THIS is what we blockchain advocates, entrepreneurs, and otherwise innovators need to focus our collective efforts on rather than fighting with each other to build the next “Uber” when the the majority of the world does not even know what the smartphone is yet.

I know scalability is a big factor which may have very well initiated the private blockchain trend; However, I stand by my point that building up before a solid foundation is laid down and everyone trying to create their own solutions will get us nowhere very slowly; whereas if forces were united we would have the ability to move quickly and efficiently. We have the required resources in place to source an all-around beneficial solution on common ground that both increases overall security without diminishing response time too greatly by shifting focus back to technology such as smart contracts, dacs/daos, and many similar recent breakthroughs rather than how to manage something (the blockchain) none of us yet fully understand.

Maybe I am looking at this too black and white, but sometimes you have to take a step back to move several steps forward. I am worried we may be digging our own grave if we don’t begin coming to a common solution.